About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
MSNBCW 12
MSNBC 11
CSPAN 5
LINKTV 1
LANGUAGE
English 35
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)
on december 18, 2008 with outgoing president george w. bush. listen to what he said, also his body language. [video clip] >> you said, i am optimistic that we can change the tone in washington. >> that was a hopeful person saying that. >> are you less hopeful? >> we work together, there were some bipartisan accomplishments but the rhetoric got very tough. some people here in this town use the politics of personal destruction to advance their agenda. i do not want to sound self- serving, but i have not. i do not think a president should. i was hoping for better tone, and it did not happen. host: as you reflect on george w. bush at the end of his two terms. guest: president obama has said things better very similar. it is not just about washington. washington is a reflection of a broader culture. we live in a polarized culture. we live in a culture that celebrates -- notoriety is the quickest ticket to 15 minutes in the 24 hour news cycle. the other enormous difference that contributes to this -- i do not know how you reverse it. 50 years ago, you had two political parties that were both appe
, ironically, if john mccain and lindsey graham and others had joined with george w. bush, this could have been done in 2007. >> right. what john mccain sort of didn't say but implied was what has changed about this issue? it's simple. november 6th, the 2012 general election. the overall share of republican votes was -- people that voted for republicans is white. 11% nonwhite. it is -- that is an untenable -- we saw in 2012, and it will only get worse if they continue to lose 70% plus of the hispanic vote. that's what's changed here. republicans broadly recognize it. the question is jose touched on it, the path to citizenship. that is the piece that is always the one that conservative republicans said we will not do this. we are validating illegal behavior, no matter what we do. now there are some republicans on board. marco rubio, john mccain, lindsey graham saying, look, this has to be in the proposal. can they rally republicans in the house and senate behind the political necessity of putting immigration reform behind them with a path to sit sfwlenship or not? that seems to me to be the rub.
george w. bush? >> sorry. i was tweeting. [laughter] yes and no. politically, republicans distanced themselves from george w. bush because it was the thing to do. numbers do not lie. he became very unpopular. parties do not have to embrace figures and politicians to become unpopular. my view is that a lot of distress over bush's domestic agenda from which they fled in 2005. it had been an ancillary result of failure to defend iraq and have a favorable recognition. >> what might have been a successful policy agenda? >> i think the entire country stopped listening to president bush which would be good for the country when it lost faith that he was managing the war effectively. he found it more difficult to get hearings on some of the issues. a lot of people on the right to it came at bush on a lot of these domestic issues. they were feeling extremely distressed about what was going on in the war and did not want to turn on the war. we have troops in the field. this seems like a noble endeavor. they were angry at him for throwing them on the defensive for the prosecution of the war. as
party over the past four years since george w. bush left town is roger els. he's run the party, he's run the conservative movement. when roger els decides she's not worth the trouble, then that means that conservatism's moving in a new direction. i talked about what happened this weekend at "the national review" institute's talk. i was really surprised. really surprised by what i heard. and heartened, whether it was bill kristol or john hatoritz. also scott walker who is doing really well up in wisconsin. and all the republicans got up there, and they were saying the same thing. we've got to stop being the stupid party. we've been saying here for six months, we have got to -- and john, i thought, had one of the best points, that we have stifled debate. the conservative movement has stifled debate. and if you go out and you dare to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting at
here obviously. president george w. bush at 171, we do not have numbers on h.w.bush. what amy noted, the way that the president handled these particular appointments was a bit unprecedented. is it reasonable to suspect that this is not going to be the end of this the white house will not say, you have us, we will change our ways? >> sure, we need to balance what she was saying by suggesting that maybe the senate has been overreaching a little bit. if you go back and read the explanation, the federalist papers, it is the president who is supposed on object the controlling factor who is appointed in his administration. they are not to block the appointments through ideological reasons. >> this federal appeals court says that the senate has the privilege to advise and consent. i used to work for the senate majority leader i remember when the shoe was on the other foot. and senate democrats were blocking it, the federal appeals court said that the white house cannot look at the senate floor and say, we do not see business going on here and we will claim that you are in recess and make a
party and of cuban descent. he will be influential. john mccain campaigned against george w. bush in 2000, a long time advocate of immigration reform is big advocate of this. democrats almost every case on this bipartisan committee as well as in the senate are expected to follow the president's lead whatever he outlines tomorrow many they're on board with that agenda. the big question and stumbling block has been for decades is border security. how do you define it, how do you support it? this includes the use of drones, technology, all kinds of electronic surveillance and et cetera, critics say there is not enough. you need a fence and more troops on the border. how that gets legislated and sorted out we her from the president and house republicans will be influence in the outcome. house republicans want to be very much a part of passing this legislation this time. jamie: i would love to see our troops continue to work down there. that would be so helpful. carl, thanks. jon: for more on the immigration reform plan let's bring if karl rove, former chief visor and deputy chief of s
was the -- was not a controversial issue within the republican party during the george w. bush years where you had vast -- they're not going to core issues about their view of government, of society, of the market, and i think that you see a great deal of desperation instead taking place. you look at what's happening in virginia and pennsylvania and michigan and the places where they're trying to change the rules in order to kind of hang on to some -- their presidential electoral hopes. >> alex, on this question of democracy, i was trying to think of this quote from bobby jindahl in this speech that he is going to give. he says we must reject the notion that the noegs that skin pigmentation dictates behavior. the first step in getting voters to like you is to demonstrate that you like them. >> that is the crystallizing issue for the republican party. how do you convince anyone not of the republican party current demographic hue, how do you convince those people that you like them and right now all those folks have a number of examples to point to to show that the republican does not like them, does not want th
fixing elections? more than a third of democrats think george w. bush's supporters probably rigged the election in ohio back in 2004 through voter fraud, including a majority of african-americans. about the same number of republicans, 36%, think obama's supporters did the same thing to win last november, although there was no evidence of any cheating or anything, even a machine foul up. think back to 9/11. more than a third of democrats are part of the truther crowd, people who believe president bush knew about the attacks before they happened, as do nearly 60% of african-americans. the difference in the parties is the knowledge base. republicans who know more about the news are actually more likely to believe conspiracy theories fueled by right wing media like fox. dan cassino is a political science professor at fairleigh dickinson university. and radio broadcaster michael smerconish. michael, you brought this to our attention. i want to get you as a generalist like me, what do you think this told you that surprised you, this poll? >> well, it reinforced what i have suspected all
in the minority, they have been in the minority when george w. bush had republican majorities in both houses. they saw the tax cuts go through, they have seen other instances where they're fearful enough that the worm will turn, and they want to be in a position where they can use their minority status for leverage. and if you put that together with the other reality, ezra, which is that all the other 100 senators who have egos like to use holds, sometimes even with their own president, to block action on a nomination. to give them a 2 x 4 across the forehead to gain something that may be entirely extraneous. >> thank you. >> the part of the election that people couldn't just start -- stop talking about. it was beyonce, and that is next. or that printing in color had to cost a fortune. nobody said an all-in-one had to be bulky. or that you had to print from your desk. at least, nobody said it to us. introducing the business smart inkjet all-in-one series from brother. easy to use. it's the ultimate combination of speed, small size, and low-cost printing. is bigger than we think ... sometimel
george tennet, in the george w. bush days. that is why john brennan didn't get the nomination to run the cia in the first time around. so his confirmation hearings this time around, february 7th, should be very interested. there is controversy there. the other nomination, where there used to be suspense, is former republican senator chuck hagel, i say there used to be suspense, because there were questions about whether there would be fight from the left have dried up. chris coombs, all have met with mr. hagel this week, he assuaged their worries, ditto, charles schumer, of new york, he addressed criticism of his hard-line anti-gay and anti-abortion political past. he addressed that criticism, where they largely neutralized it. ahead of his confirmation hearings on thursday, republicans are making noises about chuck hagel. the only strange remaining might be evidence of any interesting and therefore important resistance to chuck hagel is probably this ad, you might have seen from an unknown group called "use your mandate." >> chuck hagel, he has been nominated to be secretary of defe
clinton and george w. bush as the third consecutive two-term president. when he takes the oath of office for the second time in the last 24 hours. >> i, barack hussein obama, do solemnly swear -- >> that i will faithfully execute. >> that i will faithfully execute -- >> the office of the president of the united states. >> the office of the president of the united states. >> that makes a total of four oaths of office. today east ceremony on martin luther king employing bibles by martin luther king and president lincoln. an address down the mall toward lincoln's memorial where dr. king gave his most famous speech. to spell out the country his vision for the next four years. it is america's quadrennial celebration of the office of the presidency, the orderly transition of power, the luminaries, the singers, the salutes, the speech, the pomp, the circumstance, the second inauguration of president barack obama starts right now. >>> welcome to washington. it is chilly but frankly bearable outside as the country prepares to celebrate the peaceful maintenance of power, the transferns of power fr
. george w. bush got 62 million votes in the 2004 election and conservatives said he had a mandate. barack obama got 62 million votes in the two -- 2012 election, and conservatives started a secessionist movement. but the obama campaign took it to them and made a difference in the end. they helped create a new electorate, a coalition of concerned and they turned it out on election day. our two political parties are separate and not equal. the percentage of republicans who are white has remained fairly steady since 2000 at about 87%. the percentage of democrats who are white in contrast has dropped from 64% in 2000 to 55% now. independents have gone from 79% to 67% white since 2000. the depth of republican dependence on white voters explains a lot about the recent election. not least about its outcome. republican efforts to suppress minority voters back fired big time. [applause] in florida alone, 266,000 more hispanics voted than in 2008. similarly in ohio, 209,000 more blacks voted than in 2008. overall, while romney received 59% of the white vote, all hot -- obama -- omaha? obama got 93%
came up with this idea that george w. bush, bush 43 as he's known in this country, and tony blair knew there were no weapons of mass destruction in iraq but invaded anyway. your book says that's bunk. >> yes. the book really says that the intelligence agency simply got it wrong. the politicians, talking particularly about here in london, thought the weapons were there, and they thought it because the intelligence agencies told them they were. so i really focus on trying to understand why mi6 got it wrong over those iraqi weapons of mass destruction. and incidentally, a lot of that british intelligence was vital in the american case for war. but they simply were being told things by their agents in iraq which were not true, and the quality control, the checking on that information simply failed. people were saying this is here, that's here, and they believed it. the checking simply didn't work. and that played a key role in the case for the war. and especially in britain. i think it has done a lot of harm to the reputation of mi6 because the case was built on their work. jon i hate to k
sat down with the director of management under president bush george w. bush. i wanted to get his reactions. many republicans hoped daniels, a fiscal conservative would run for president in 2012. he turned that job down and made a seriously nerdy move. despite he is not an academic, ened up not president of the united states but president of purdue university. i talked with him. >> budgets are the wrong place to be focused but you have made a career, in part on what you have seen as being critically important, which is the budgeting process. talk to me about the importance of budgets. >> i'm a noncombatant. >> no. i'm interested in the importance of budgets. >> i don't have a party or partisan point of view. i'll say that. i would agree that it's a mistake to fix sate on budgets as though they were the end themselves. they are an expression of what's important to us. we devote the most money to the things we believe is most important. it's a fundmental decision. we have to be thinking in terms of priorities and they translate into the dollars and cents. >> you were wildly popular
that's one of the key things that this party has to do. you do it quickly. george w. bush always did it when he was president. somebody comes out and says something stupid like the congressman from georgia, paul brown, a couple days ago said barack obama, he didn't follow the u.s. constitution. he followed the soviet constitution. it doesn't cost republican leaders anything to speak out and say, that is a stupid and offensive remark. it offends swing voters. let's talk about issues that are going to balance the budget, save medicare and get americans back to work. we've got to speak out against the stupidities. bobby says we've got to stop being the stupid party, and you start by disciplining your most stupid members. >> joe, that's right. bobby jindal said last night that the party needs to stop insulting the intelligence of the american people. joe, he's going to use his platform as chairman of the republican governors association, also as one of the most obvious of the 2016 candidates to make these points. he said government needs to be much smaller. he said that we need about hal
bill clinton and marc thiessen, a former speech writer for george w. bush. and senator johnson didn't get a chance to answer the question that secretary clinton asked of him. what difference it make, why the people at the consulate that night, why they were there? >> you must be relieved to learn megyn, that you and katherine herridge and everybody at fox news are wasting your time, it doesn't make a difference how the americans died or whether the american people were misled how they died. this is a scandal not just because four americans were killed, it's not just a scandal because the administration ignored numerous warnings about the growing threat from al-qaeda. it's not just a scandal because they ignored and denied ambassador chris stevens' request for more security or didn't have forces in place to rescue them. it's a scandal for repeate an extended period laid the blame on a youtube video when any person watching events unfold know that wasn't the case. congress has a right to ask these questions and a responsible to ask these questions and secretary clinton has a responsib
publication. john dickerson was credited with being the guy who knocked george w. bush off his heels the most times during his presidency. it's not surprising to me, though, that there is a conflict of interest here. do we remember during the election when there were reporters caught off mic before mitt romney made his statement? cbs news reporter, jan crawford, was one of those reporters. so clearly there is a problem at cbs of there being biased in their reporting. but as we've seen throughout the years, it's not surprising. >> steve: so this is clearly, in your estimation, an example, glaring example of liberal media bias? >> i think it is. and at least with mr. dickerson, he is honest about, in his biothat he's work for slate and the cbs political director. but -- >> steve: how do you do both? >> that's the question. i mean, if cbs is going to portray themselves as a middle of the road, unbiased news source, then it seems a little strange that you would have someone who is writing regularly for a far left publication, as the political director. i think that we saw that with the election r
on it immediately. i supported ronald reagan when he sent troops into grenada. i supported george h.w. bush when he sent troops into panama. i supported president clinton, when, against the will of the congress, he did what was needed to be done in kosovo and bosnia and so forth. in this case, i think the president has behaved in that tradition. >> i would argue the constitution doesn't have an exception -- that when you are having tough times, the constitution says that you just go ahead and do it. after vietnam, you were quite critical of the bombing in cambodia because you felt that it was not authorized by congress. has your opinion changed about the bombing in cambodia? how is cambodia different from libya? >> my attitude has not changed about vietnam itself. >> what about cambodia? >> it was the extension of a war prosecuted without the involvement of congress after a number of years. that is very different. >> length of time, but similar circumstances. and obama campaign and authorized by congress. it is not this kind of latitude to sometimes go to war and to sometimes not go to war. i thoug
presidents have had to do the hard work. esident george h.w. bush made a budget agreent for which he -- may have caused him to lose the election in 1992 because it angered a number of republicans, but it also helped balance the budget and gave us a period of time in the 1990's when that agreement plus a good economy gave us an actual surplus of funding. sense that there is at the white house a feeling, two things that i would like to disabuse the white house of. thfirst is tt the budget problem isn't a real problem. i can't believe that people at the white house think that. i mean, everybody knows it is. senator mcconnell gave a very good explanation of what was going -- what was going on there, but let me say it this way -- in 2025, according to the congressional budget office, every dollar of taxes we collect will go to pay for medicare, medicaid, social security and interest on the debt, and there is nothing left for national defense, national laboratories, pell grants for education, highways, every other thing, the investments that we need to make in research to grow this country, it al
Search Results 0 to 34 of about 35 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)